View Post [edit]
Poster: | k-otic | Date: | Sep 30, 2009 1:23pm |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: Those watermarks - where video sources are defaced by them |
Reply [edit]
Poster: | Fact_Checker | Date: | Sep 30, 2009 4:30pm |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: Those watermarks - where video sources are defaced by them |
Merely pointing a camera at a film print, or scanning it, doesn't result in a creative new work. The result is merely a file filled with computer typographic characters that appear arbitrary to a human being.
Anyone who believes that restoration is copyrightable should also carefully read the court decisions and the text of the law. Merely putting something back the way it was before (which is restoration in its literal meaning) does not result in a new work and is not creative. There is no reason under such circumstances for copyright to last beyond what the original copy did. Where you know of a "restored" work which is entitled to a new copyright, fid out if the "restored" work has something new, such as a new musical soundtrack, a new introduction, or changes in editing.
Reply [edit]
Poster: | Video-Cellar | Date: | Sep 30, 2009 10:41pm |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: Those watermarks - where video sources are defaced by them |
This post was modified by Video-Cellar on 2009-10-01 05:41:37
Reply [edit]
Poster: | yofitofu | Date: | Nov 28, 2009 12:48am |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: Those watermarks - where video sources are defaced by them |
http://cartoonsonfilm.com/disclaimer.html
Here, the "collector" of these cartoons, Tom Stathe, seems to be saying that he has some "ownership" of the materials by virtue of having "restored" them, which seems to mean he has transferred them to DVD, maybe cleaned them up a bit, perhaps added music?
Do you think this is a legitimate claim of ownership in the works in question? He has not changed the films content to any degree I can see. And how to really determine this if the "owner" is probably unwilling to show off the originals?
I understand the desire to protect one's own business interests and thwart competition, but where is the line drawn on what is a"restoration" and what is not?
Of slightly more concern is the fact that, according to the Film Superlist 1894-1939, quite a few of the titles he is offering did have their copyrights renewed.
This aside, does anyone think this is a legitimate claim of ownership?
Reply [edit]
Poster: | Video-Cellar | Date: | Nov 28, 2009 1:19am |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: Those watermarks - where video sources are defaced by them |
This post was modified by Video-Cellar on 2009-11-28 09:19:13
Reply [edit]
Poster: | Fact_Checker | Date: | Oct 1, 2009 2:16am |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: Those watermarks - where video sources are defaced by them |
Reply [edit]
Poster: | Video-Cellar | Date: | Oct 1, 2009 12:31am |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: Those watermarks - where video sources are defaced by them |
This post was modified by Video-Cellar on 2009-10-01 07:31:37
Attachment: PD_Copy_Notice_1_VDI.jpg
Attachment: PD_Copy_Notice_2_Virgin_Video.jpg
Attachment: PD_Copy_Notice_3_10_star.jpg